Good lord, what a twisted expression of the American ideal. 

We the People established a republican form of government in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Yes, we support the blessing of Liberty upon all the peoples of the Earth.  The only thing 'big' about it is the number of free people in the world, not the size of their government.

If only meritocracy was honored as much as you would hope it would be.  Alas, we've come a long way, baby...

Indeed.  Unfortunately the principles of the freeman have long been forgotten in the schools.  Instead our children are taught to obey the dictates of de facto rule rather than to "know thyself."

Americans have been bequeathed the highest form of governance on Earth, but it must be embraced by each generation lest they become the tools of designing men who claim authority over them.  How wise indeed were the American founding fathers.  Would that such consciousness and understanding rested within the hearts and minds of today's Americans, young and old!

Fred, you are very close to understanding the roles and responsibilities of the freeman, i.e. the sovereign individual, the independent thinker, the empowered man.  I know it is a little overwhelming, but I hope you get there.

Your definition of socialism is an attempt to squeeze classical liberalism into a utopian authoritarianism.  You can't have it both ways.  Either you are for the empowerment of the individual and the responsibilities that come with it or you are not. 

Representing yourself adamantly and conscientiously, contributing to society of your own free will, making yourself known and understood, not manipulating or coercing others, and taking a stand are quintessential qualities of the freeman.  I support you in that.

Know that the challenge of socialism is to get others to follow those that create the rules for a socialist society.  The challenge of the Freeman is to resist being ruled by and dependent upon the dictates of others.  You are free to pursue your utopian dreams, and I am free to follow my own.  The real challenge of the socialist is to allow others to live their own lives as they see fit.

I acknowledge your compassion for others, Fred.  Perhaps you might consider that among the freemen, we, too, have compassion and value the freedom to choose what causes we wish to support and those we do not. 

One final note, you frequently end your posts with some form of "Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create [...]"  Please understand that 'socialism' does not and cannot create anything.  People do, ideologies do not.  Capitalists in fact create; they produce, invent, plant and harvest.  Socialists lay claim to what they did not create.  They lay claim to the fruits of the labors of others, to be used for their own plans for 'society.' 

At least be honest with yourself, that your ideas of what would make for a better society would be for others to give of their labors and capital to your utopian plans, for that is the real challenge, eh?  Getting Mike and I and millions of others like us to act in accordance with your ideals and plans. 

That's a real challenge, I know, because we don't agree with your ideas, and we are in fact living and acting exactly as you say we should by 'representing ourselves adamantly and conscientiously, contributing to society of our own free will, making ourselves known and understood, not manipulating or coercing others, and taking a stand.'

There may be hope for you yet, Fred. ;-)

The goal of Socialism is to enlarge individual societal/governmental control, effectively eliminating any and all resistance. Socialism is the challenge of social abilities to create obedient societal participants.

There fixed for you.  ;-)

Blecch...  We the People did not establish a more perfect 'socialist' union, far from it.  Take that trash to the dump where it belongs.

I beg to differ, Fred.  Humans may be trusted to take care of themselves but cannot automatically be trusted to take care of others.  The primary reason for a republican form of government in which the powers are distributed and serve as a check upon each other is because people entrusted with power are NOT to be trusted implicitly.  They are to be kept in check because power is subject to abuse.  I may abuse myself, but I may not abuse my neighbor.  

I'm curious, Fred, in your utopian Socialist world that creates law and order, how will that order be enforced if not by police or some other armed authority?  There is not a single socialist state in the world that does not reserve arms for the state and restrict them from the populace.  Socialism cannot be established without force — period.

Another false equivalency, Fred.  The people are not the government — the government are representatives of the people and must follow the rules established by the Constitution which limit their powers explicitly. 

The government was not formed to guide us!  It was formed to protect us from being ruled, as had been the case for thousands of years.  The people individually are the best judges of guiding themselves.  

Certainly, you do not and cannot speak for the people.  This collectivist group-think is exactly the kind of rhetoric used to claim power that is not yours.  The people speak for themselves, and a representative government is to give the people a forum for the redress of grievances.  Since We the People come from many backgrounds, have varying skills, abilities and aims in life, the government cannot 'guide' us.  The laws are for the protection of lives, liberty, and property, i.e. the inalienable rights upon which the government was chartered.

The state is a poor guide for the people, as left unto itself, would make all serve the rulers to be the masters of all.  We are not to trust the government — ever.  Like a casino, office-holders are kept in check by the distribution of power because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I would agree that the state is the 'child' of the People who founded it, not the nanny-state that treats the people like perpetual children.

The best way to correct the de facto nanny-state is to bind it with the chains of the Constitution.

Please define a 'civilized state,' Fred.  Is the state supreme and the citizens its subjects?  If so, that is merely statism, and 'civilized' is merely a deceitful word for authoritarian.

Good Lord, talk about mentally ill...

A false equivalence, Fred. 

Socialism, whether from the left (communism) or the right (fascism) is a form of Statism in which all power resides with the State, and the rights of the people are granted or refused by those holding the reins of power, whether through democracy or dictatorship in its many forms.

True Liberalism, particularly in its republican form, acknowledge all power and rights reside with the People who charter a government with citizens to represent them and protect their natural-born rights.  In this form, the government is subservient to the People and have only the powers the People grant them, and those powers being the powers the People themselves already possess.  If an individual cannot dictate to his neighbors, the representative republican government cannot do so either.  With such a government, power is distributed, not concentrated.  The government cannot grant rights, it can make no laws that abridge the natural-born rights of every individual — true equality.

There is no limit to the power a Statist government may claim in the name of 'the common good.'  However, a republican government has no power it has not been granted explicitly by the People through the government charter, i.e. Constitution.

Inequality is the basis of Socialism — some are more equal than others.  Whereas in a republican government, all are equal before the law — justice is blind, and 'social justice' is but a clever form of statism.  Socialism is a form of servitude, the ultimate appropriation of all into the hands of authoritarians who call themselves experts who rule the less 'expert' common people.  Inequality in its most obvious form.

Classic Liberalism does not claim for itself the seats of power in which the common people must submit to 'experts' or authorities.  No claims are made to the lives, liberty and property of the people, in fact its sole purpose to is to protect their rights above the insidious wiles of 'experts' who deign to rule.

Such cognitive dissonance is precisely why the world is in the predicament it's in.  This groupthink causes people to lose themselves in the mass — they know not who they are or for what they are responsible. 

Socialism is an indefensible con that appeals only to the feeble-minded, hence government-subsidized education to churn out millions of educated fools in debt perpetually and dependent upon a "governmental institutional relationship."  At least you know you have been institutionalized!  Good luck with that.

Hear! Hear!  Thanks, Mike.  Very clearly explained.  Only a partisan could find fault in it...

Believe the fascists when they call themselves socialists.  Hitler & Mussolini being the two most famous fascists, both were the Socialist party leaders of the day.  Right and left are merely the same scale of Statism.  Top vs bottom is Liberty vs Authoritarianism.  "Liberals" in the classic sense are for Liberty. Statists are for any version of government that places itself above the people.  A republican form of government keeps power distributed among the people, while a statist form centralizes power into fewer and fewer hands.  

Just like the word "democracy", the right-left scale is a misnomer designed to discredit republican governance and obfuscate the power grab of those who aim to be rulers of us all.  

The battle is for hearts and minds, and to get people to believe they are beholden to authority other than themselves.  Such an idea is considered 'anarchy' today, but it is merely the classic liberalism upon which republican government has been founded.

I love this quote — probably because I am an elder now and have learned what a republican form of government is.

I imagine today's young adults might be confused by this quote, thinking that it IS the job of government to 'establish schools, assume the provision of the poor, undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads, in short, every thing.' ;-)

Compound this corruption with the ability to print up unlimited amounts of currency and charge the people compounding interest on what becomes an unpayable debt, and you can't help to see that we have become slaves to the government, which has become a slave to the private banks that create this 'money' for Congress to spend, spend, spend.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the power and authority to regulate carbon emissions, energy production, 'hate speech,' social media, nor to mandate medical procedures — experimental or otherwise — or allow millions of non-citizens to emigrate, work, and even vote, thus displacing the citizens whom the government are supposed to represent.

Heed Madison's words.  The Founding Fathers have become the enemies of the State, and their words have all but been blotted out from the minds of the People.

Gibberish.

Good call 10 years ago.  Unfortunately they HAVE gotten away with it.  Carbon tax is here!  

This assertion is becoming more and more believable. 

It is common knowledge in Central America that the drug trade is run by the DEA & CIA.  The Mexican cartels are even behind the current illegal immigration push now looking to reach 10 million new 'illegal' immigrants during the Biden admin.  I don't think there is a way to deport them at the same rate as they have come in, so it looks like they are here to stay, along with the already present 10 million illegal aliens. 

Presidents Bush 1 & 2 and Clinton had ties to the drug trade during their tenure, Reagan, too, was tainted with the Iran-Contra fiasco.  Only Trump has remained defiant as far as I can tell — thus the onslaught of the swamp and deep state intelligence agencies known for their complicity and black-money budgets.

Just look at San Francisco, Portland, NYC, Chicago, where criminals are not even charged or are let loose to thieve again on no-cash bail.  It seems intentional, if you ask me.

And don't forget 10% for the 'big guy'!  I wonder how many politicians are raking it in from the Ukraine...

Unfortunately, today's so-called 'money' is actually debt — every dollar, pound, peso, and rupee has been 'loaned' into circulation at interest.  There is not even enough currency to pay off every debt currently on the books, not by a long shot.  It's nothing short of economic servitude — i.e. slavery!  And boy are we "sorrowing" ...

Hmm, not so hard to imagine now, eh? ;-)

(Talk about a "tirade" ... Sheesh, Fred)  And you've gotten every point you are trying to make wrong.

Fred, that is a straight up LIE!